Study Aids
Case Briefs Overview
Casebooks
Case Briefs
E

Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture

553 U.S. 591 (2008)

From our private database of 46,500+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Engquist v. Oregon Department of Agriculture

United States Supreme Court
553 U.S. 591 (2008)

Play video

Facts

Anup Engquist (plaintiff) was an international food-service specialist for the Oregon Department of Agriculture (ODA) (defendant). Engquist had difficulty working with another ODA employee, Joseph Hyatt, and repeatedly complained to their supervisor, Norma Corristan, about Hyatt. Corristan responded by sending Hyatt to diversity and anger-management training. John Szczepanski, an assistant director of the ODA, had supervisory authority over Corristan, Hyatt, and Engquist. Szczepanski told a client that he was unable to control Engquist and that he was going to get rid of both Engquist and Corristan. Szczepanski then chose Hyatt for a managerial position despite Engquist’s superior qualifications for the job. Shortly thereafter, Szczepanski eliminated Corristan’s position during a round of budget cuts and then eliminated Engquist’s role as part of a reorganization. Engquist sued the ODA, alleging violations of various state and federal employment laws. Engquist also brought what was known as a class-of-one equal-protection claim, alleging that she was discharged not because she was a member of a particular class but instead for arbitrary, vindictive, and malicious reasons. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Engquist on the class-of-one claim. The appellate court reversed, and Engquist appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Roberts, C.J.)

Dissent (Stevens, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 832,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,500 briefs - keyed to 994 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership

Casebooks

Employment Law

Key Terms